Apparently CNN and the producers of AC360 and Rick's List believe that nativist angry white men who have ties to hate groups and white supremacists just don't get enough airtime on their network. They also don't seem to feel the need to explain to their viewers what their background is either. I already posted Rick Sanchez's segment with FAIR's Dan Stein. Now we get treated to AZ Sen. Russell Pearce debating civil rights activist Al Sharpton on AC 360. I guess David Duke wasn't available so they had to settle for Pearce instead.

I guess CNN can't leave all of the fear mongering and race-baiting to ClusterFox. A little clarity on their guests' backgrounds would be appreciated instead of them pretending like these people are in the mainstream.

COOPER: Senator Pearce, this is your law. It's now been struck down. At least the key portions, or maybe the most controversial portions have been blocked, I should say, not struck down, just blocked, by a federal judge, who said that enacting some of those provisions would cause what she said was irreparable harm to the United States.

What do you make of that?

RUSSELL PEARCE (R), ARIZONA STATE SENATOR: Well, she goes farther than that. She's actually tried to support the Obama administration policy of nonenforcement.

She -- she realizes the problem is bad and says, I don't want that to go into place, the policy, not law. She doesn't want it to go into place because she's afraid it will overwhelm the ICE. That's really outrageous.

The nice thing is, you need to understand, the important part of this bill did go into effect. As of today, it is illegal in the state of Arizona to have a sanctuary policy. The handcuffs come off from law enforcement and they go on the bad guys.

COOPER: Reverend Sharpton, the piece of this which has attracted a lot of attention around the country is the idea of police officers stopping people, being required to ask them for their papers if -- if they have -- are suspected of committing some form of crime.

So, to play devil's advocate here, if police officers are only allowed to question someone's immigration status after they have stopped them for another offense, what's so wrong with that, in your mind?

AL SHARPTON, CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVIST: Because the -- what is wrong with it is that you have to have a set of laws that go for everyone.

When I was in Arizona at the request of a lot of the people in our organization that lived there, the real fear is that, when you are stopped and you may look Hispanic, you will be subjected to a different line of questioning and procedure than if you didn't. And that is profiling.

And I think that just we have that possibility, which was addressed by this judge, is a violation of people's civil rights that are legal citizens that may appear a certain way.

COOPER: Senator Pearce, to that point, if a white person with blond hair is pulled over, do you think they will be as -- come under as much suspicion as a person of color would?

(CROSSTALK)

PEARCE: You know, immigration -- you know, illegal is not a race. It's a crime. Those statements are absolutely outrageous by Congressman Sharpton.

I mean, it prohibits racial profiling in this bill, which, by the way, the federal law doesn't. The law makes it a secondary offense, so you have to have lawful contact, which, the Supreme Court, in a 9-0 landmark decision called Muehler vs. Mena five years ago, said you don't have to.

We went beyond what we were required to do. And it's demeaning to law enforcement to assume they're looking out there to violate people's rights. We have internal affairs. We investigate bad policing.

But don't start to demean a law that is enforcement of law. It has been the law for 50 years. Arizona is going to enforce it. You know, let's talk about the real damage, $2.7 billion dollars in Arizona to educate, medicate and incarcerate illegal aliens, Rob Krentz, a rancher on the border, during the debate of 1070, 12 police officers just in the city of Phoenix murdered and maimed by illegal aliens.

SHARPTON: No, I think all of that is horrific. No one wants to see law enforcement killed or, for that matter, young people killed...

(CROSSTALK)

PEARCE: Well, apparently, they do.

(CROSSTALK)

PEARCE: Apparently, they do. (CROSSTALK)

COOPER: Mr. Pearce, let him respond. Let him respond.

SHARPTON: No one wants to see law enforcement killed, or, for that matter, young teenagers killed at the Mexican border that happen to be Mexican. We don't want to see anyone killed.

And when we're talking about law, that is what the judge talked about. The state of Arizona or no other state has the right to supersede federal law. We live in a nation of law. We can have different opinions, but we can't have different facts.

The fact is, immigration is under the domain of the federal government. You can't have Arizona say, well, we can look at -- for certain things here if there's some illegal contact. Then, in Florida, they will say, oh, if you look like you might be from Cuba. Or, in Brooklyn, New York, they will say, you may look Haitian.

(CROSSTALK)

SHARPTON: We cannot have this kind of thing.

And, by the way, I'm a minister and head of the National Action Network. I'm not a member of Congress. Again, we can't have different facts, Senator.

PEARCE: Well, Mr. Sharpton, let me clarify a couple of things very clear with you, because you have really misstated some issues here.

First of all, apparently -- have you read Senate Bill 1070?

SHARPTON: Yes, I have.

PEARCE: I know -- I know nobody takes the time to read it.

SHARPTON: No, I read it. I read it...

(CROSSTALK)

PEARCE: Well, I would like for you to..

(CROSSTALK)

PEARCE: ... know what is in it, because none of you -- hang on -- none of what you have said is in that bill.

So, apparently, you haven't read it, just like Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano. Let me tell you what the bill does. It is the rule of law. It mirrors federal law.

And, secondly, do you understand, if Congress wanted to preempt the states, what they have to do is pass plenary -- they have a plenary provision. They have never done that, never been preempted. And, also, you're contradicting the Fifth, the Sixth, the Eighth, the Ninth, the 10th Circuit Courts, which said states have inherent rights, inherent authority, inherent authority, to enforce these laws. The United States Supreme Court, in Muehler vs. Mena, just five years ago, 9-0. Even the liberals agreed the states have...

SHARPTON: It is very strange, though, that you're assuming that the attorney general...

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: We're almost out of time.

So, Senator Pearce, just finish your thought. And then I want Reverend Sharpton to respond.

(CROSSTALK)

PEARCE: It is not a federal issue. Once they cross -- yes.

Once they cross that border, it's never been a federal issue. It's always been a partnership, just like DEA working -- DEA -- working with ATF or other federal agencies. It's absolutely a mischaracterization. States have inherent authority and responsibility.

COOPER: Reverend Sharpton, I want you to have time to respond. Then we have got to go.

SHARPTON: But we are also obligated to protect American citizens that have not come across any border..

PEARCE: Yes, and this law does.

SHARPTON: May I finish? -- that have not come across any border that are citizens here that should not be profiled because they look or appear or have some reasonable suspicion by Arizona State Police. There are more boots at the border now under this administration than there ever have been. This is not about the border. This is about American citizens that could be profiled.

I think it's also very presumptuous to assume the attorney general of the United States, the Justice Department and this judge didn't read a law that they brought to court.

COOPER: OK.

PEARCE: They didn't.

SHARPTON: At least give us credit for being able to read and say that is not the law. The federal government should not be superseded.

Comments

We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Any comments that are sexist or in any other way deemed hateful by our staff will be deleted and constitute grounds for a ban from posting on the site. Please refer to our Terms of Service (revised 3/17/2016) for information on our posting policy.